Visitors Bureau Agrees to Change Description of Anti-Museum

Last week I told y’all about how AiG had corrupted Kentucky’s government. Well according to an email that I received today, the tax-funded Northern Kentucky Convention & Visitors Bureau will change its inflammatory and specious description of the creation anti-museum. The Sunday’s Kentucky Enquirer is going to have a story on it. Someone should post the link in comments when it come available.

Daniel Phelps, the paleontology society president, had complained the tax-supported visitors bureau should not have used the museum’s controversial language because museums don’t aim to turn anyone against religion. In fact, many religious people believe in Christ and Scripture as well as evolution, he said.

I would classify myself as a Christian who doesn’t have any problem with mainstream science Dan. I do have major problems with young Earth creationism though, and as I have said on other threads, I am concerned at the implications for the church in the long run. The church doesn’t need to be involved in this debate, which it will inevitably loose.

Anyway, good work Dan. I enjoyed your review over at NCSE by the way. It will be interesting to see what appears on AiG’s website over the next few days !

So the site has replaced an incendiary remark with a foolish contention that is meant to be taken as an obvious fact–but which is miserably incorrect.

Might as well stop the whining. The paleo-president Phelps has already told the newspaper “it’s probably not something we should be concerned about anymore.”
A pretty clear cease-fire signal, as it were.

******

So the museum description now reads:

“A walk through history via the pages of the Bible - exploring how scripture provides an eye-witness account of the beginning of all things.”

Not bad at all, really. Got a nice inviting ring to it. If people continue supporting, visiting and praying for the Creation Museum, it will do just fine.

Heh! I didn’t think of that, usually I don’t keep facts and anti-facts together so it takes a while to predict what the diverse pseudosciences will adopt.

Still, the difference to the old hypothesized delivery system (icy comets) may not fit 24 h creation. :-) And it will be observable, water in exoplanets atmospheres have been detected. So the spin AiG tries to put on the accretion disk will not be enough. ;-)

I have no idea what “unguided evolutionism” is, or how it could possibly be used against Christianity, any more than unguided physics, chemistry, meteorology, etc. The entire point of the thread is that this accusation was unfounded and unwarranted and has now been removed. Do you really think that the U.S. government should take an official stand on the religious implications of any scientific theory? What if the government officially condemned your religion because it was contrary to the findings of science? Would that be OK with you?

Most of my knowledge of Ken Ham’s viewpoints has come from quotes on various reality based community websites. Visiting creo websites has proven to be a good way to get lots of creo spam in the email box and not worth the hassles.

That being said, my impression is that he is getting more extreme and bigoted as time goes on. No idea why.

Perhaps his association with the American Death cultists has radicalized him.
More likely the constant ridicule, laughter, criticisms, and deconstruction of his pseudoscience has ticked him off enough that he is beginning to lash back.

If the trend continues, he will become a Rushdooney or Falwell class religious extremist. Look for Ham to start advocating the overthrow of the US government and incarcerating and murdering vast numbers of people in the name of god. Really this Death cult version of Xianity bears less resemblance to my mainstream sunday school version than a Grizzly bear does to a Teddy bear.

Not only do I not give a rat’s a$$ what people believe privately, I strongly support everyone’s right to live, believe, worship, or not worship, as they see fit, with only the restrictions that they obey the law and respect the rights of others.

I am opposed to creationists because they -
1) Attempt to insert sectarian pseudoscience as “science”, into taxpayer funded public schools, schools which serve all Americans, regardless of religious identity, and educate our future scientists.
2) Are involved in the practice of distorting and manipulating other aspects of science to dishonestly impact public policy.
3) Also, although it is their legal right, their practice of repeatedly publishing works that misrepresent science, in order to fool the lay public, also gets on my nerves.

If some guy follows a religion, wears certain clothes, eats certain foods, and performs certain rituals, but he tells me that his religion is compatible with mainstream science, and he doesn’t behave in the ways I described above, that’s good enough for me.

If some guy wants to sit around and believe that the sloths walked from Turkey to Brazil after the Ark landed on Mt Ararat, that’s just fine with me too, as long as he respects my rights and doesn’t behave in the ways described above.

For me, this is most certainly not about forcing people to believe or behave as I do, but about standing up for my own rights and promoting public education and public policy that are in line with mainstream science.

We didn’t need Kentucky to tell us that unguided evolutionism is used as a tool against Christianity.

If you really thought that there was any problem, scientific or theological, with what Pope John Paul II called the “convergence, neither sought nor fabricated” of evidence for evolution, you wouldn’t have to use the silly phrase “unguided evolutionism.”

The belief that there is no intelligent, personal interference in the evolutionary process.

or how it could possibly be used against Christianity, any more than unguided physics, chemistry, meteorology, etc.

Strangely enough, we don’t see people using physics, chemistry or even meteorology as a tool against Christianity.
In order for us to know about the anti-Christian spirit of unguided evolutionism, all we have to do is to check on how Darwinists celebrate “Darwin Day”. Lots of anti-religious remarks, lots of anti-Christian nonsense, etc, etc. Lots of philosophy, and very little science.

The entire point of the thread is that this accusation was unfounded and unwarranted and has now been removed.

But the accusation is not unfounded, but factual. Wasn’t it dear old Clinton R. Dawkins who said that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually full filled atheist? Why not be open and honest about it like him?

Do you really think that the U.S. government should take an official stand on the religious implications of any scientific theory?

Do you honestly think that any theory of origins is religiously neutral? Or is it only “neutral” if is slants to the “unguided evolution” part?
Secondly, the ACLU’s interpretation of the American Constitution has already made the US gov to take an official stand on a theory that has religious implications. Meaning, any theory of origins that appeals to anything (or Anyone) outside of Nature is “unconstitutional”. The only constitutional theory of origins is unguided evolutionism. So, the Gov has taken a stand on this issue.

What if the government officially condemned your religion because it was contrary to the findings of science? Would that be OK with you?

No, that would not be OK. However, it is not OK either to teach ONE version of origins, and make it a sacred and holy theory, that cannot be checked with scientific evidence.

For sure, you’ll respond and repeat the same Darwinian mantra “There is no evidence against evolution”. However, when you say that, you are doing philosophy not science. There is no shortage of scientists (both religious and secular) who point out several problems to the Darwinian synthesis. However, *you* would not consider that “valid” because it undermines *your* definition of science.

SO in a way, the Gov has unofficially condemned my religion, since they have decided that the only “scientific” explanation of origins is one that contradicts Christianity (and the empirical facts, for that matter).

Secondly, that would be a weird condemnation, since the founding fathers of many of modern day scientific branches had a worldview more in line with the YEC than with the Darwin Only party.

Regardless of what side of the fence you’re on, Ft, I think that’s a perceptive and profound reply you’ve offered there. Thanks.

I don’t think there is any fence FL. Young Earth creationism is wrong from a scientific viewpoint. Scientists realised it was wrong 200 years ago. It’s even more wrong today if you judge it by the progress we’ve made in science over the last two centuries. That is why it’s going to lose. I just hope the church doesn’t lose as well. Unless more evangelical Christians come to their senses and realise why this really is just nonsense it will. Have you ever wondered why mainstream scientists aren’t coming to the same conclusions as the YEC’s FL ?

I’m sure that others will address your other claims, and may even note how people like Kenneth Miller and John Haught, who represent mainstream Christianity, balance out Dawkins’ “intellectually fulfilled atheist” comment.

What I am much more interested in is what you think the empirical evidence supports, specifically:

1. Do you think that, whether or not “evolution” is the driver, that humans are biologically related to (share common ancestors with) dogs? Dogwoods? Both (like Michael Behe)? Neither? (please clearly pick 1 of the 4 choices - a best guess will do)

2. Do you agree (like many OECs) that life on earth has a ~4 billion year history? If not, how long a history do you think it has? Be specific, again, a best guess will do.

There is no shortage of scientists (both religious and secular) who point out several problems to the Darwinian synthesis. However, *you* would not consider that “valid” because it undermines *your* definition of science.

Maybe mainstream (I refuse to use the word secular as many mainstream scientists that accept evolution are Christian) scientists do disagree on how evolution happened, and how life arose in the first place, but they are certainly not disputing the age of the Earth/Universe, or coming up with silly conclusions that there is indisputable evidence of dinosaurs and people living side by side a few thousand years ago.

No mainstream geologist that I know of accepts flood geology. Flood geologists are 100% Christian fundamentalists, as far as I can tell.

SO in a way, the Gov has unofficially condemned my religion, since they have decided that the only “scientific” explanation of origins is one that contradicts Christianity (and the empirical facts, for that matter).

This is ass-backwards. Scientists have explanations of “origins” (which goes beyond origins of species, meaning goes beyond evolution) which are, indeed, based on empirical evidence, having progressed beyond the work of Stanley Miller. Where the problem arises, and what Kitzmiller argued, was efforts by religiously-motivated people to bring in a particular religious point of view and teach it in public school science class as if it were science and and equally valid alternative to the widely accepted science of evolution.

And regarding the modified statement, perhaps some of those eyewitnesses will be working at the Flintstones Museum and have an opportunity to talk with the visitors.

In a recent article that I’ve read on the museum, someone said that the YEC’s are in fact redefining what a Christian actually is. Reading FL and Mats opinions I would definitely agree with this statement.

Do we really know that FL and Mats are YECs? Neither answered my simple questions in Comment 203,114. One who is truly confident in YEC claims would have no problem answering them, or challenging OECs and IDers who might disagree.

Actually, the unguided part is the crux of the matter. The real question in this origins debate is: can natural, impersonal, undirected, unguided forces create the bio-complexity,

That’s as intelligent as saying that the crux is whether or not impersonal and unguided forces can create complex weather. Of course they can, which doesn’t really tell us much about God either way. It’s your ridiculous dogma that allows “impersonal forces” to be responsible for inanimate processes, and even ongoing biological processes, while demanding that we teach something else regarding past biological processes. There is no consistency or intelligence in that demand.

OR
do we need a Creator to do the job?

OR, do we need a God to explain your warped brain? I think not.

For you to see that such is the matter at hand, you can see that there are IDists who accept common descent,

They accept it very stupidly and without explaining how the evidence backing up Darwinian mechanisms (and others) can fit in with a teleological process.

BUT don’t accept the “unguided part” of Darwinism.

Yes, due to their sectarian beliefs.

That is why I am specific in saying “unguided evolutionism”.

Tell us what guided evolution would look like (and not merely as it does, like you dolts typically claim), and then we’ll consider your terms to be meaningful. We know of no evidence for mechanisms of “guided evolution”, hence we just speak of “evolution” in scientific circles.

“In order for us to know about the anti-Christian spirit of unguided evolutionism, all we have to do is to check on how Darwinists celebrate “Darwin Day”. Lots of anti-religious remarks, lots of anti-Christian nonsense, etc, etc. Lots of philosophy, and very little science.”

Gee, is that how religious evolutionists “celebrate” Darwin Day? Like PvM and Wesley Elsberry? You’re a dishonest creep.

How does the other people speaking their minds constitute using evolution against Christianity?

It does by the simple fact that they use the official dogma of evolutionism against the Christian Faith.

Dishonest cretin, back up your lie about “dogma”. And why do you IDiots constantly project your deficiencies onto science?

The fact that you morons make attacking your religion so easy by insisting on bashing and subverting science, leaves a great opening for anti-religious people to attack your dishonesty and stupidity. That is, leave the city gate open, and yes, you’ll be attacked by your enemies. Close it like intelligent religious folk do.

Hence, what I said initially is confirmed even by your words: the theory of evolution is used as a tool against conventional religion, Christianity in particular.

It’s used against stupid religious sects. Why do you complain about attacking stupidity, other than the obvious personal reasons you have?

[snip]

“But the accusation is not unfounded, but factual. Wasn’t’t it dear old Clinton R. Dawkins who said that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually full filled atheist? Why not be open and honest about it like him?

Again, how is this an example of evolution being used against Christianity?

Dawkins doesn’t know philosophy, and he’s wrong about evolution’s role in making it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. There’s nothing at all in the lack of a good scientific explanation for life that actually points to God. Dawkins is also wrong about life looking designed, as techne and nature have been obviously separate to most people through time.

That is, however, an example of evolution being used against sects of Xianity (Dawkins would extend it to all Xianity, but that’s his problem). Many disagree with Dawkins’ forays into theology and philosophy.

By the simple fact that they use evolution against Christianity.

Just as heliocentrism could either be used against Xianity, or simply to change what Xians think about the cosmos.

[snip]

“Do you honestly think that any theory of origins is religiously neutral?”

It doesn’t’t matter. The point is that the government should be neutral when it comes to religious implications.

Evolution is religiously neutral in that it is simply based upon the evidence. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t disagree with some ancient religious myths, but then that’s potentially true of any area of science.

You didn’t answer my question, and it DOES matter. IF ANY theory of origins is bound to have religious implications, then the Gov is favoring ONE particular (and minority) view on origins at public expenses.

Bizarre bozo, the gov’t teaches science in order to avoid intruding upon religion, or teaching same. I’d like to see a Hindu creation myth taught to your children, to see just how happy you are when religious beliefs differing from your own are taught in the schools.

The problem is that you know as little about the law as about science. It isn’t the matter of “having implications” that is the test, but whether or not religion (or atheism, by interpretive extension) is being taught. Evolution is a theory that is accepted by both religious and non-religious folk (a rule of thumb test of whether or not it is “religious in nature”, though it had better not be taken as the ultimate test), just as heliocentrism (of the solar system) is.

It is up to you to decide whether or not your religion is going to oppose science. It is not up to you to decide what science is based upon your pathetic religious opposition to science.

We are paying to have your religion to be taught to our kids.

Yes, I suppose the fact that we’re not teaching the flat earth with it’s dome over it, as implied in Genesis, is “teaching religion” in your book. But then you’re not only dishonest, you’re an ignorant sap.

The only scientific theory of origins is evolution,

……according to the ones who believe in evolution.

And the spherical earth going around the sun is the only scientific view, you know, according to those who believe in it. Mats is so pathetic that he’s using extreme relativism to avoid telling the truth.

so the government has taken a stand for science and not for any one religious viewpoint.(…)

The Gov has taken a stand on one particular view of origins,

Gov’t accepts what science says, partly because science and justice require basically the same approach to the evidence. It has no more taken a stand on one particular view of the origins than it has taken a stand on one particular view of the solar system, which is to say that it accepts the models that best explain the evidence at this time (and probably into the future). You oppose the very bases of law, justice, and science.

which very clear religious outcomes, at the expenses of everyone’s money.

Should we teach the Native American story of the thunder bird in geology? Or ought we to be neutral, and merely teach small-t truth as indicated by the evidence, leaving religion alone as far as possible?

“… it is not OK either to teach ONE version of origins, and make it a sacred and holy theory, that cannot be checked with scientific evidence.”

Mats got this one right, finally. Indeed, the sacred and holy “theory” of ID has no place in the public schools, for it cannot be checked by the evidence, quite unlike evolutionary theory.

There is no such thing as a “sacred and holy theory”.

Yes, there is. Darwinism is one.

Only in your quaint, and stupid, belief system.

In the sane world, evolution is just an explanatory and organizing theory in science, which seamlessly fits in with genealogical data, geology, physics, and the rest of science. ID has to “change science” (into non-science, or nonsense) even to begin to be considered to be a “science” which differs not from theology.

There is also no such thing as a theory that “cannot be checked with scientific evidence”. Religious myths about origins have these characteristics, not science.

Then evolution is a religious myth.

Why are you here, idiot? You can’t back up a single one of your non-trivial claims, you can’t fight for your beliefs based on the evidence, all you can do is to tell absolute lies like “evolution is a religious myth”. We’re hardly going to be convinced by your ignorant twaddle.

“There is no shortage of scientists (both religious and secular) who point out several problems to the Darwinian synthesis. However, *you* would not consider that “valid” because it undermines *your* definition of science.”

Stupid boy, why even bring up rancid lies second hand? You obviously are too incapable even to deal with crap written by Behe, you’re certainly not up to the task of showing that Behe or other ignominious traitors to science have anything worth saying.

We don’t consider ID to be sound (learn, retarded boy, the difference between “valid” and “sound”) because it disagrees with Newton’s, other theistic scientists’, and atheistic scientists’, definition of science. Indeed, that is why science is taught in the schools, because it is what both religious and non-religious educated folk accept as “self-evident”.

One of the biggest lies you people tell is that evolution is “atheistic science,” when in fact it is what finally brought biology into line with the practices of geology, chemistry, and physics. There was no neutral concept of biological origins prior to scientific evolutionart theory (coming in primarily with Darwin, and some others). You miss the days when religion was taught, and before science “drove out” religion from the schools, as more honest atheists claim it did (though only officially taught religion was really driven out).

Of course I would. Any scientific challenge to the theory of evolution deserves to be judged fairly based on the evidence. Have you got any?

But that is just the problem: you don’t consider anything that opposes evolutionism as science,

This is one of the most mind-numbingly stupid concepts that creos and IDiots bring up, that since we reject the bogus claims against evolutionary science, that we’re somehow not open to contrary evidence. We’re open to the possibility, but we’re not willing to credit stupidity.

The fact that we don’t consider anything that opposes relativity as science is no argument against relativity. It is just a way of noting that relativity agrees with the evidence, while nothing else does up to this point. If, however, MOND were to prove itself empirically, we’d consider it, just as we’d consider evidence-based models of evolution which disagreed with current theory.

therefore evolutionary skeptics are ruled out, NOT because they have no evidence, BUT because the simple fact of questioning evolution is a sign that they don’t know anything about science.

Yah-yuh. What an idiot! You have nothing to back up that empty lie.

So skeptics are dead on arrival.

Why do you think this blog even exists, imbecile? We exhaustively consider what the IDists say. The fact that it never measures up to science is your problem, and one that you can’t hope to begin to address.

Thanks to the legislation (not the science), “only scientific theory of origins”.

Little creep, you’re even too stupid to know that the courts are what throw out creationist legislation. And you also don’t address the reasoning used by Judge Jones, or the others who found creationism/ID not to be science. Again, why do you bother, when we know what’s going on, and your patent lies are so easily countered?

“SO in a way, the Gov has unofficially condemned my religion, since they have decided that the only “scientific” explanation of origins is one that contradicts Christianity (and the empirical facts, for that matter).”

I’m sure that if you had any empirical facts that go against MET you’d actually present them. Since you don’t know the first thing about science, you don’t even know what the relevant facts might be.

Your religion is condemned by all of the evidence, not the gov’t. The gov’t defers to science in order not to impose upon religion, more than is necessary. You want your theological nonsense taught in the schools, in order to impose your beliefs onto others.

Would you prefer it instead if the government choose your religion as the one true religion that we all have to follow and enforced that policy?

Well, if that were to happen, there would only happen a change of religion, since, presently, the government has chosen a religion as the one true religion, has enforced it with the Law, and we all have to follow at the risk of being considered “unscientific”.

Yip-yap goes the mangy dog, avoiding the fact that he is indeed trying to impose his theology, while being too stupid even to know the difference between science and theology.

Of course you don’t have to follow science, as clearly you don’t, cretin. So try to do the one decent thing you might be capable of doing, quit lying.

By the way, most people would disagree that evolution “contradicts Christianity”.

Most people who don’t know what evolution really means would disagree, yes.

Sounds like the argument for geocentrism.

The founding fathers were wise enough to try to establish a system that prevented the majority from oppressing the minority. If you don’t like it you are always free to live elsewhere.

That really doesn’t change anything I said.
But ironically, in the USA now we have the minority oppressing the majority.

You mean fundies oppressing the rest? 2006 was the answer to that.

The 10-15% of Darwin dogmatics are enforcing their religious worldview on the majority of the American population.

What is more, most theistic evolutionists accept MET most of the way. It’s no doubt to their discredit that they carve out certain areas for religious reasons, but they’re almost completely on our side about what ought to be taught. That is to say, while they’re not entirely in agreement with science, they’re in agreement that science should be taught in public schools, not religion.

I guess that either the founding fathers of the USA failed, or their words have been taken out of context, and used to enforce a particular religious world view.

2006 went some way to rectifying your assaults on the founding principles, as did Kitzmiller. And your pathetic lies only punctuate your amazing ignorance in every field of knowledge.

When FL tells me that Christians have “gotta make a choice as to where they stand” I sort of assumed he was a YEC Frank. It’s not the first time I’ve been told this.

I can honestly say that had Young Earth Creationism been presented to me before I became a Christian I would definitely now be an agnostic. I just wonder how many others have rejected Christianity because of the antics of Ham & Co. ?

That is to say, while they’re not entirely in agreement with science, they’re in agreement that science should be taught in public schools, not religion.

Which is why Glen, I drew FL and Mats attention to Jocelyn Bell Burnell , in order to show that Christians have nothing to fear from mainstream science or evolution. But then again, if you are of the opinion that you can’t be a Christian and accept evolution.….

But in fact, it really does, and at a key, non-negotiable point as well.

The problem you seem to be having is that you are looking at the world in dialectical terms, as if MET were really concerned about religion and not merely about its ongoing project of understanding the world empirically. MET comes to conclusions which are contrary to some religious claims, no question, but that doesn’t mean that it addresses religion. In the ideal sense, biology doesn’t address religion at all, since preconceived conclusions are anathema to science (yes, I know that caveats can be made, but ideally it’s all the evidence considered in the manner found to work in science, and elsewhere).

Besides the rather convincing quotations that have been already quoted,

Sorry, Dawkins does fine until he gets into philosophical matters. Science is not a religion, hence we do not bow to Dennett and Dawkins.

you also have (for example) evolutionist Douglas Futuyma’s clear statement (and also Mayr’s):

“Evolutionary theory does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (i.e. conscious forethought), either in the process of evolution of an adaptive characteristic or in the development or behavior of an individual organism.”

–Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed, p 342.

It does not admit it because it has not been found (except from very recent manipulations). And as far as I can see, Futyma is not denying that conscious choices have affected evolution.

Meteorology also doesn’t admit teleology, because it hasn’t been seen (again, other than a few human feints at manipulating weather). It’s not a principle of science that conscious agents can’t be involved, it’s just that what we see is a whole lot of adaptation which is blind to the future, leading often to dead ends, that is, to where any known conscious forethought would not lead.

****

“The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.”

–Ernst Mayr, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought”, SciAm July 2000

IOW, evolutionary theory completely denies all teleology and all conscious forethought at ANY point in the evolutionary process, including the point where the first humans are originated.

Find evidence to the contrary, and evolutionary theory would change. MET is not claiming that it cannot be that any interventions could ever have occurred, it is based upon what we know, which is that non-teleological processes account for what we see, as well as can be demonstrated from the evidence.

It’s “a completely mindless process”, as Futuyma said.

One thing you need to recognize is that Futuyma is talking about science, not about religion. Indeed, he cannot speak from biology to the conditions that allowed life to arise and to evolve, he’s talking about matters within essentially stable physics.

Needless to say, that’s an extremely clear and direct denial of what biblical religion affirms: God’s teleology and conscious forethought regarding the origination of the first humans. Take a look:

(Genesis 1: 26)

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’

Right, like we needed to know that the Bible posits teleological processes. All ancient origination myths do, to my knowledge.

But thanks for pointing out how pre-scientific these notions are. The IDists really owe you.

****

(Isaiah 43:6-7)

I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’ Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth–everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.”

****

Colossians 1:16)
For by him (Jesus Christ) all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

And? God also hardened Pharaohs heart, sent a flood, made a donkey talk, and raised Jesus from the dead.

Your very last Bible quote notes that all things were made by and for God. What does that mean? That we oughtn’t to look for the proximate causes of the weather, the planets, the operation of the sun, and the sun’s energy output?

You guys want to make it out that you’re only opposed to evolution, not science in general. Well, if you can understand the sun as having formed from a nebula (and I don’t know if either you or Mats can, but if so, that only shows how deep your opposition to science is), as very many Xians can, you might almost as easily to understand humans as having evolutionary proximal causes.

The principle is the same, it’s the teleological psychology in the Bible that makes you complain more about biological evolution. Don’t kid yourselves, though, we know that there’s no inherent stopping point to your opposition to science, since you could demand that teleology be forced into science and science education as readily into astro-physics as into biology.

You see that? All three of these texts clearly express God’s teleology, God’s goal-directedness and purposefulness, God’s conscious forethought, that evolutionary theory itself denies.

No, it only speaks to the available evidence, which is not capable of ruling out God’s setting up the universe for life to evolve. Cosmological IDists sometimes allow that evolution was undirected, while maintaining that the universe was made for life. Of course it’s just theology, since we have no evidentiary reason to accept such claims, but evolutionary science was no more intent on driving God out than was physics or astronomy. It’s credited by Dawkins and others for doing so primarily because it was the last area of study to really come under cause and effect understanding, and also because it strikes closer to home than does, say, heliocentrism.

However, if non-Biblical views of the cosmos, plus proximal causation undirected by “God” or some such being, are believed by theists not to threaten their religion when the subject is physics, I cannot see how undirected proximal causation of human biology, like undirected proximal causation of human environments, is necessarily threatening to religion. It’s the very limited scope of finding evidence for God that bothers you guys, while biology is, of course, intent on finding out whatever it can. Science ought not to stop just because you want some unexplained phenomena around.

Especially when it comes to the origin of humans.

Why the “origin of humans”? Once upon a time the primary concern was that earth was no longer the stage watched by the gods, or by God. Vitalism was another important concern. Because both of these fell, you aren’t willing to admit of evolution of humanity. Well, why not, since there is no elan vitale?

(Evolutionist James Rachels has also pointed out that the religious claim of humans being created in the image of God is not sustainable if one subscribes to evolution.)

Many religious people didn’t subscribe to that anyhow, given the remarkably different characteristics claimed for God than for humans. That is to say, God evolved throughout the Bible (and after), so that the little anthropomorphic God of Genesis was no longer the God of Paul and the (other) rabbis.

Anyway, religion (that is, Biblical religion, Biblical Christianity) makes very clear that human origination was purposeful and goal-directed and full of conscious-forethought.

And evolutionary theory absolved God of proximal responsibility for malaria and the many ailments of humans. Since many religionists are very uncomfortable with the idea that God gave us malaria–and an essentially quadrupedal skeleton in spite of our bipedal habits–this seemed at least some help in theodicy, if it is hardly the solution to the “problem of evil”. Surely it ought to occur to you that much evil is caused by undirected causes, like tornados and poor “evolutionary solutions”.

Behe tries to make one of the best arguments against design, the exquisite adapation of malaria and Anopheles (I don’t know that he really discussed mosquitos, but they’re implied at the least), into a major claim in favor of ID, using colossal chutzpah. This is because he’d rather have a malicious God than no God at all. He can have that God, nevertheless, the fact is that malaria and mosquitos evidence evolution every bit as much as humanity does, and parasitism is a prediction of evolution (under known circumstances, anyway). So God apparently did not deliberately cause the misery and death coming from mosquitos, which may leave God uncaring, but at least not your exquisitely evil God. I have to wonder if many anti-evolutionists just want their evil God, who they hope will burn their opponents forever.

What I’m saying is that we really don’t see teleology, we see blind evolution. It makes as much sense to insist that God is proximally responsible for malaria as it does to insist that God is proximally responsible for the deaths from the Sumatra earthquake and tsunami.

One Biblical passage notes that “God” sends rain on both the just and the unjust. If one merely extended that idea to evolution, you could give up many of your hang-ups and implicit accusations against God.

In contrast, Evolution says a big direct NO to all of that, saying in fact that evolutionary theory itself does NOT admit any conscious forethought at all. Evolution presents a very clear denial of what religion affirms.

You keep writing as if evolutionary theory has an a priori aversion to teleology, which of course it does not. Quit acting as if the evidence doesn’t come down against teleology in proximate causation.

Of course that’s a simplistic telling of the real position. Modern evolutionary theory looks for causes, and insists that one not rely upon teleological evolutionary processes unless one has evidence in favor of these. It also finds no teleology in geology and in meteorology. If your theology has a problem with that, then your theology is problematical.

Directly opposed to biblical Christianity. Wouldn’t you agree?

Of course not, because the claims are based in quite different ways of thinking. All of modern science has failed to find the intervention of spirits and gods, and sticks with non-teleological explanations apart from human actions (and even those are supposed to be ultimately explained by non-teleological means). And whatever Dawkins might think, many Xians and other monotheists viewed the world and life as having been untouched, or only minimally touched, by God from the beginning. If these earlier Xians did think that life came by divine intervention in the beginning, it still wasn’t much of a stretch to push God back beyond the beginning of life, particularly since geology seemed to predate life (so the creation event would prior to the earth and to life).

You can believe in unevidenced teleology, is what I’m saying, since we can hardly rule out God’s intervention at some point (subsequently as well, but there is little or no evidence of this). Science doesn’t make claims beyond what the evidence shows, hence it doesn’t rule out teleology. You claim teleology without evidence, and even more bizarrely, claim that teleology is evident where only evolution may be seen (and where God as a proximate cause is theologically questionable, as in P. falciparum).

The bases of the two claims are quite different, for science is limited and contingent in its statements, while being based in evidence, and religion is unlimited and non-contingent (or has been) with no evidence. Oddly, then, the unlimitedness of religious claims, coupled with a disdain for evidence, leaves religion possible wherever it doesn’t disagree with science. If you choose to disagree with science using undemonstrable claims, then of course we’ll disagree, as we did about helicentrism and vitalism. Even then you are free to believe what is contrary to the evidence, but you have no right to teach such nonsense in the schools. Not because it’s nonsense, rather because it’s an intrusion upon our religious freedom.

A few howls of protest prompted the Bureau to alter its wording a few days ago, which the Bureau informed us would probably happen (and we shared with the Bureau that we would not be offended with re-wording the museum text on its site).

“Actually, the unguided part is the crux of the matter. The real question in this origins debate is: can natural, impersonal, undirected, unguided forces create the bio-complexity, OR do we need a Creator to do the job?”

Exactly. That is why saying “unguided evolutionism” is like calling it “wet liquid water”. You have already defined “evolutionism” as “unguided”. To call it “unguided evolutionism” implies that the belief in evolution is what is unguided. It is not. It is guided by facts and evidence. I asked you before if you had any evidence that “we need a Creator to do the job”. You have not provided any. As others have already pointed out, “natural impersonal undirected unguided forces” are indeed capable of generating the diversity of life we see on this planet.

Really? How do you know that? Have you or any of your Darwinian brothers on the faith ever saw an impersonal force creating living beings from dead matter? Citing examples of rabbit s turning into rabbits, or bacteria turning into bacteria doesn’t tell us where do rabbits, bacteria and human observers come from.

“It does by the simple fact that they use the official dogma of evolutionism against the Christian Faith. Hence, what I said initially is confirmed even by your words: the theory of evolution is used as a tool against conventional religion, Christianity in particular.”

So what?

“So what?” - Then you agree that the theory of evolution is used as a tool against Christianity?

Lots of religious people use their religion, and the freedom given to them by the U.S. Constitution, against science.

I don’t know anyone who uses his/hers freedom of speech against “science”. I do, however, know people who use tax suported public systems to promote their religious worldview in the guise of “impartial science”.

In any event, teaching evolution in public schools does not constitute using science as a tool against religion.

Even if that was true (which it isn’t), it doesn’t invalidate the fact that the theory of evolution has religious implications, and that speaking about origins invariably has religious implications.

By the way, just in case you do it again, let me state it once and for all:
Darwin-skeptics are not against science. We are against the theory which postulates that all living forms present on earth are the result of a 100% impersonal, unguided, random, undirected naturalistic process.

And even if it is, it is only your particular religious view, not Christianity in general, that has a problem with evolution.

If you say that the bio-sphere is the result of an impersonal process, you affect all Christianity.

“You didn’t’t answer my question, and it DOES matter. IF ANY theory of origins is bound to have religious implications, then the Gov is favoring ONE particular (and minority) view on origins at public expenses. We are paying to have your religion to be taught to our kids.”

This is dead wrong. The government must support science and it’s findings, regardless of the implications for any religious sect.

But that’s just it. They are not supporting science. They are supporting a particular, minority, unproven, dogmatic interpretation of origins, at the exclusion of all the other views. The fact that those who believe in it call it “science”, doesn’t make it so.

Just because science can have religious implications does not mean that science is religion.

I never said it was. I never said that science is religion. I said that evolutionism is religion.

The question you have to ask is why your particular religion is at odds with the findings of science.

Except that they aren’t. It is not coincidence that the founding fathers of most of modern day branches of science had views more in line with the ID position than with the “Darwin Only” thought police.

“The Gov has taken a stand on one particular view of origins, which very clear religious outcomes, at the expenses of everyone’s money.”

Once again, would you prefer that everyone be forced to teach your particular religious beliefs in science class, regardless of the findings of science?

I would prefer if the Gov stopped trying to present itself as “impartial” when in fact is favoring one particular religious worldview. But even so, I wouldn’t want my worldview IMPOSED in public schools, just like the Darwinian worldview is imposed. I would like teachers, scientists and philosophers to freely bring in the scientific evidence for all origins theories ever proposed (which are essentially just two: nature created itself or An Immaterial Being created nature).

“Yes, there is. Darwinism is one.

Then evolution is a religious myth.”

Once again, the theory of evolution is not holy or above reproach in any way. It has been tested more thoroughly than any other theory in the history of science and it has never been disproved.

Hilarious! You are joking, right? Do you have Darwin pictures in your room? Goodness!

“But that is just the problem: you don’t consider anything that opposes evolutionism as science, therefore evolutionary skeptics are ruled out, NOT because they have no evidence, BUT because the simple fact of questioning evolution is a sign that they don’t know anything about science. So skeptics are dead on arrival.”

(…) Well you are partly right. In the absence of evidence, why should I accept anyone else’s views?

That is just it. There is no absence of evidence for real design. There is a judicial system that forbids such an evidence from even being presented! Not only that, we have the Communist ACLU filling law suits left and right. Since we are not tax supported like Darwinism, we can’t afford to go on legal debates with such powerful and well financed organizations.

“Well, if that were to happen, there would only happen a change of religion, since, presently, the government has chosen a religion as the one true religion, has enforced it with the Law, and we all have to follow at the risk of being considered “unscientific”.”

You didn’t’t answer my question. Would that be OK with you or not? Would it be OK for the government to enforce your religion instead, given that you have such a problem with them supposedly enforcing what you perceive to be some one else’s? If that did happen, should the government make science tax free?

Like I said above, nor me nor any IDist, nor any YECist nor any Darwin-skeptic I know wants the IMPOSITION of a given origins theory into public classes. What we want is freedom to criticize and freedom to present the *scientific* evidence that goes against evolutionism, and supports the Design argument.

I never said it was. I never said that science is religion. I said that evolutionism is religion.

Surely all disciplines in science encompass evolution ? I presume you are just talking about biological evolution, in which case your statement is ridiculous.

For example, in astronomy stars are born from dust clouds (which are the remains of earlier stars). Planets form from the dust left over (a solar nebula) after the star has begun nuclear fusion. When the star’s fuel (hydrogen) runs out it starts to burn helium etc., all the way up to iron. Eventually nuclear fusion stops, the star collapses to form a white dwarf/neutron star/black hole depending on its original size/mass. The dust left over from this process goes on to form new stars/solar systems. This is cosmic recycling/stellar evolution. Are you saying that this is religion ? Come on Mats, “catch yerself on” as they say in these parts (miss-spelling intentional !).

“That is just it. There is no absence of evidence for real design. There is a judicial system that forbids such an evidence from even being presented! Not only that, we have the Communist ACLU filling law suits left and right. Since we are not tax supported like Darwinism, we can’t afford to go on legal debates with such powerful and well financed organizations.”

Do you remember what happened at Dover? Do you remember who paid for that little bit of unconstitutional nonsense? Do you know the annual budget of the DIscovery Institute” Do you know the annual budget of the NCSE? Once again, your baseless claims are contradicted by all the evidence.

“Like I said above, nor me nor any IDist, nor any YECist nor any Darwin-skeptic I know wants the IMPOSITION of a given origins theory into public classes. What we want is freedom to criticize and freedom to present the *scientific* evidence that goes against evolutionism, and supports the Design argument.”

You already have that freedom. You always did. It is guaranteed to you by the same constitution that you are fighting against. What you don’t have is any evidence. That ia not the same thing as not having freedom. I have asked you three times now for evidence supporting your contentions, you have not provided any. You just keep repeating over and over that you are not allowed to present evidence. Well no one is stopping you. Go ahead, prove to us all that your are right. Until you present some evidence, I see no reason to continue responding to your nonsense any longer. Repeating lies over and over doesn’t make them true.

“I would prefer if the Gov stopped trying to present itself as “impartial” when in fact is favoring one particular religious worldview. But even so, I wouldn’t want my worldview IMPOSED in public schools, just like the Darwinian worldview is imposed. I would like teachers, scientists and philosophers to freely bring in the scientific evidence for all origins theories ever proposed (which are essentially just two: nature created itself or An Immaterial Being created nature).”

Scientists and philosophers can present the scientific evidence for anything they want to already. Until there is some evidence, it isn’t science. Of course there are hundreds of creation myths and they can all be taught, just not as science. What is so special about you myth? Would you still allow evidence for the theory of evolution to be presented if your myth was included, or should evolution be excluded because it is supposedly religion?

“Hilarious! You are joking, right? Do you have Darwin pictures in your room? Goodness!”

I will ignore the fact that this comment doesn’t address my argument. The answer to your question is no. I don’t have any pictures of any scientists anywhere in my office or my home. I don’t have much to do with Darwin professionally since I am a geneticist and I don’t have a “room” since I am a grown man with a job. In general, scientists don’t diefy other scientists, even good ones, even dead ones. What pictures do you have on the walls in your room? What pictures are on the stained glass windows in your church? Do they give equal time to evolution?

You can’t back up a single thing that you say, can you, jerk? You just repeat the cant of the stupid morons who you believe only because they agree with you religiously, and you haven’t a clue of what science or evolution involve in the way of evidence, argumentation, support, explanatory value, and ability to predict data. Just rave on stupidly as you have been, droolmonkey.

They are supporting a particular, minority, unproven, dogmatic interpretation of origins, at the exclusion of all the other views. The fact that those who believe in it call it “science”, doesn’t make it so.

The fact that we can demonstrate that it fits all of the practices of science, and that it integrates with geology, heredity, and physics, is what “makes it science”. Your idiocy and near-total ignorance does not make it non-science. Indeed, the fact that you can’t support anything that you say ought to imply to any lurkers that you’re just a buffoon without any abilities in this area whatsoever.

What we want is freedom to criticize and freedom to present the *scientific* evidence that goes against evolutionism, and supports the Design argument.

Since it has already been well-established that “the Design argument” being foisted on classrooms is an unconstitutional establishment of religion, that would be a problem. Yeah, trying to put yet another label on moldy old narrow sectarian doctrines doesn’t make them any better or any less a sham. Leaving off the “and supports the Design argument”, as the DI is trying to do, is still recognizable from the content. No sale.

You have all the freedom to spout whatever anti-science nonsense you want to outside the classroom. What you don’t get is a pulpit inside the classroom at taxpayer expense.

Have you or any of your Darwinian brothers on the faith [sic] ever saw [sic] an impersonal force creating living beings from dead matter?

Have you or any of your creationist brothers ever seen a personal force create living beings from dead matter? For that matter, have you or any of your creationist brothers ever seen a personal force at all, with the evidence to back it up? Faith doesn’t cut it in science, and since we have demonstrated that impersonal forces exist, and can create great complexity sans guidence (ie snowflakes), that is the place to start.

Citing examples of rabbit s turning into rabbits, or bacteria turning into bacteria doesn’t tell us where do rabbits, bacteria and human observers come from.

Nothing “turns into” something else. Use of such terminology reveals great ignorance on your part. The examples of rabbits and bacteria giving birth to slightly different rabbits and bacteria is what gives us insights into where they came from. The fact that you choose to refer to them using the same name is merely a rhetorical convention. It has no scientific significance.

I don’t know anyone who uses his/hers freedom of speech against “science”.

I never said it was. I never said that science is religion. I said that evolutionism is religion.

Come up with any evidence that it is, lying sack. There would be a glaring hole in science without evolution. And learn what words to use, idiot monkey, it isn’t “evolutionism”. That’s just more dishonesty coming from the IDiots. Can’t make a single honest point, so you resort to name-calling.

I would prefer if the Gov stopped trying to present itself as “impartial” when in fact is favoring one particular religious worldview. But even so, I wouldn’t want my worldview IMPOSED in public schools, just like the Darwinian worldview is imposed. I would like teachers, scientists and philosophers to freely bring in the scientific evidence for all origins theories ever proposed (which are essentially just two: nature created itself or An Immaterial Being created nature).

Idiot boy would prefer that the medical personel in Lybia weren’t shown to be innocent by HIV phylogenetic information, and that an attempted murderer (he injected his victim with HIV—and don’t forget that many of these IDiots deny that HIV causes AIDS) not be brought to justice using similar phylogenetic evidence involving HIV.

No, just believe the lies of the IDists, that God made up the patterns to mimic evolution, so that the patterns in fact mean nothing as to mechanism, deduction, and extrapolation. Try this idiot without the proper evidence used in science and in the courts, and see what a squall even this retard can raise when the lies are set up against him. But he can tell as many lies as he wants, for his own religion is without morality and ethical content.

As I noted on another thread, the guy who claims that God caused a bunch of computers to move from the warehouse into his own home is more reasonable than these IDiots. Burglary at least has all of the marks of agency, organisms have none of those marks. IOW, it’s at least rational to say that some unknown agent (alien, God, leprachaun) caused the burglary of which one is accused, no matter the lack of evidence. It is not rational (let alone evidenced) to say that organisms were designed, for they lack the rational designs that machines and other human-made objects typically have.

Huh, I wonder why we can never pry it loose from the hands of the IDists. I mean, we ask for it constantly (and not the confusion and conflation used by Dembski to treat complexity in exactly the same manner as simple design), and we never get it. What’s the deal, is your evidence so proprietary and so promising of future development that it’s hidden completely away?

There is a judicial system that forbids such an evidence from even being presented!

Wow, you mean that Behe was called to the stand specifically in order to prevent his testimony? We sure do have an incompetent justice system, as the dolt went on for hours digging himself into a hole, never once presenting any kind of real evidence for design.

My God, you are the dumbest thing on earth, claiming that the “evidence” which was presented in the judicial system is what the judicial system itself prevents from being presented. Since you can only ape IDiots (apparently the imbecility of your leaders is something to which you can only aspire), of course, you can’t even suspect the contradictions that you get into.

The inadequacies of evolution to ensure intelligence are markedly presented by this dumb little prick, Mats. I really would think that an intelligent designer could have come up with a better result than this dolt. Whereas the denial and lack of regard for any sort of honesty at all by Mats are fairly well understood as coming out of the evolution of social animals, such as humans.

I know, raven, I shouldn’t feed the troll. Trouble is, troll-feeding can be fun. But I intend (hey, same weasel word as Larry Craig used. My intent is true, though, so it’s unlikely that I’ll reply to him again here) to quit feeding him on this thread with this post.

You have all the freedom to spout whatever anti-science nonsense you want to outside the classroom. What you don’t get is a pulpit inside the classroom at taxpayer expense.

Let’s recap. By flooding the media, especially the web, with so many easily accessible, misleading sound bites they are effectively censoring any rebuttal that would clear up their misinformation. Yet they still whine about being shut out of public school science class, even though they’d really like to see public schools go away. And even though, with or without church-state issues, their pseudoscience has earned no more right to be taught in science class than astrology.

I have read above many intelligent comments, however, I think once more we are wasting priceless time while involved in non-sense discussions. This entire creationist vs. evolution debates only diverse attention on a deeper problem (as I see it) already shown by Plato: should we allow ignorance alienate the life of people? I do not care if someone believe in elves, fairies, angels or extraterrestrial forms living among us; however, I got extremely worried when someone ignore our current knowledge -an extremely costly knowledge built up for thousands of years and involving the sacrifice of many lives- with the aim to manipulate other people’s lives. Theory of evolution, as Newton’s gravitation, is a successful master piece of human dedication to explain Nature, and there is not space for doubts. Self-feeding the beast of ignorance is quite silly; but when the spread of ignorance is promoted by persons in charge of large numbers of people, the situation becomes unstable and dangerous.

10 years ago I thought it was “us vs. ‘the creationists’,” and that the latter was one big group that just believed a single fairy tale, and that almost nothing would change that. Sadly, many who know better still caricaturize it as such. As you said, the truth is very different. Specifically, several small, but well-funded, groups of activists are determined to mislead vulnerable people, including millions that aren’t “wedded” to their particular fairy tale, and who would be displeased to know that (1) there are several mutually contradictory fairy tales, and (2) that an increasing number of activists are deliberately covering up their fatal flaws and contradictions with a “pseudoscience code of silence.”

So if anyone can get even a few people to at least see it the way it is, as opposed to the caricature that I bought into 10 years ago, they not “wasting their time.”

So many angry, sad people here who are too intelligent for their own good. They willfully blind themselves to the truth so they don’t have to admit they’re wrong. You have until you die to see the light and I hope you all do. Stop hiding behind what you think you know about things that happened out of your observation or understanding and that can’t be proven though you’ve convinced yourself they have been. That would be funny if your futures weren’t at stake. Consider how many assumptions and leaps of faith you make.

So many angry, sad people here who are too intelligent for their own good.

They are so smart they need you to explain things to them?

And yeah, when ignoramuses who think we can’t have any knowledge of that which is outside of our observation start fucking up our education system (like it needs any help), and threatening to make our children as ignorant as they are, darn tootin we get mad. Why are you against the children Chet?

Consider how many assumptions and leaps of faith you make.

Done, decades ago. Are you so arrogant that you could think this never occurred to any of us before? And no, arrogance does not become humility when you give credit to your imaginary friend.

Hatred, obfuscation, and arrogance continue to shine through. A lot of smart people need things explained to them. Is it possible that many of the things “known” are not knowable or irrelevant? Before an insulting response forms, I’m not talking about the set of things one would already agree about that with. I’m talking about even more. IOW, how much of what one knows might one accept as being assumption and/or unprovable? I would submit that the percentage should be a lot higher.

Someone suggested I might be against children. I think to be closed-minded about other possibilities like ID or some other culture’s explanation of these things and then teach only the theory of evolution (and possibly glossing over the ‘theory’ part) is to do a disservice to the kids. I don’t mind the theory of evolution being taught, just not exclusively. I don’t understand the intolerance or the level of vitriol that this paragraph will no doubt inspire in some people.